New Scoring System from September 2016

In order for the worse player to win the match, they have to win 2 games out of the first 4. If you presume that they lose the first 3, even if the match would go on, they'd still lose.

Therefore, you are correct that the results may be a little bit skewed on paper, i.e. a match that could have been 21-13 21-16 can now end suddenly as in 11-4 11-9 11-4 10-12, but since the last game is not played the number of points or games may be a little bit misleading.

However, in virtually all matches in badminton, the only thing that counts is who won. For KO matches, if you lose the first 3 games, you'd have lost anyways, so there is no unfairness.

Even if you'd move the chance of ends into the third game at 6, the same effect would occur for 4-game matches. In order to erase the whole effect, you'd have to change ends at 6 points in the third, fourth and fifth game. Since the effect is quite negligible, and as I wrote above does not matter one bit for virtually all badminton tournaments, and you want as few intervals as possible, I think the current interval rules are fine.

 

@iyuaeo have a very strong argument in favor of best of 3 as compared to best of 5 games match...

If in best of 3 you have 2 first games end closely at 22-20 and 16-21 and than you have the third. If the same game played in best of 5 the same score would look as 11-9, 11-9, 12-10, 4-11. Since the 1st player won after 3d game the last game was not played, but the 12-10 win in the third could be a result of the first player having whole extra game on a good end.

This is really an unfair advantage to have one player one more game on the better end and such situation can potentially be quite frequent for the players of the same level... This should really be avoided in my opinion.

 

So how about we always play 4 games, even if the winner is decided after 3? That would solve your predicament.

 

We will still need more games to make it fair, isn't it? The player that had disadvantage to start on a wrong end will have only 2 sets if he wins 4th and 5th...

 

No, we don't, because it's not a problem in the first place. See my above post for details.

In a match that's gone 11-9 11-9 12-10 4-11 (your example), the winner is already determined after the third game. In other words: If you lose all your games on your bad side and at least one game on your good side, then you've lost the match. That's perfectly reasonable.

 

Yes, he lost on his good end but so would the other player if the ends were reversed...

 

Huh? Sorry, I do not follow. Can you elaborate why the other player would lose? Your example is:

1. Player A wins from the good end, 11-9.
2. Player A wins from the bad end, 11-9.
3. Player A wins from the good end again, 12-10. The match is now decided.
4. Player B wins on good end 11-4. This game is not played under current rules, but let's assume we'd always play 4 games.

Let's start with reversed ends. Keeping the scores:

1. Player B wins on good end 11-4.
   
2. Player A wins from the good end, 11-9.
3. Player A wins from the bad end, 11-9.
4. Player A wins from the good end again, 12-10. The match is now decided.

The result in terms of games/rallies won is different - unless you always play 4 games, then even that detail is the same. The result in terms of who is the winner does not depend on where you start.

 

You reverse the games, not the ends.

Let's assume that the good end gives 1 point advantage. In this case the score would look more like:

1. Player A wins on a bad end 10-12.
2. Player A wins on a good end 11-8.
3. Player B wins on a good end 11-9. Notice that the 3d set was won by the other player. That is because since he got one extra point in game on a good side, it went to 11-9 instead of 10-10 at the pivotal point.
4. Player B wins on a bad end 11-5.

The result is deuce and we need more games to determine the winner... This situation is very likely if both players are even but one player is slower to start. The 3d set can be a crucial for that player and because of this we cannot dismiss the disadvantage in the third set and say it's ok because he lost the second.

We should remember that winning a game on disadvantage gives you actually 2 points as it's the point the other player didn't get...

 

Oh, now I understand what your argument is - you assume a certain basic curve of playing strength across time, overlaid with ends benefits.

But with that assumption, you can always show that end choice has an influence when there's more than one game!

For instance, assume a 3x21 match-up where - just like your example - B is getting a larger advantage over time, so that A is way better in the first game, about equal in the second, and B is way better in the third. Then you can construct the same situation:

1. A wins on good end 21-9.
2. A barely wins on good end 21-19.
3. B would win handily on both ends 21-10.

vs

1. A wins on bad end 21-11.
2. B barely wins on good end 21-19.
3. B handily wins on both ends 21-10.

 

It's a bit of a Monty Hall problem, isn't it?

I see where you going with it, but still loosing with an extra set on a bad side doesn't seem fair... And yes, the same problem in the first situation would work with 11-8 in the 4th set instead of 11-4, second player don't have to be progressively better to suffer from it..

 

I don't believe so - your assumptions were just different. In Monty Hall, the logic is faulty. I believe your logic to be correct.
However, I am unsure of your assumptions, and ceding those, am not sure that the result you get is avoidable.

So what would you propose? As I believe to have shown with the 3x21 example, even if you start switching sides in every game from the third one, you still get the same problem.

Under your assumptions, player B is getting better during the match though, isn't he? Even if the change is smaller and limited, I believe the same argument applies. It's just easier to discuss if player strength is varying wildly, due to being able to separate the +-1 effect of the end and player strength.

 

What about the situation where Player A is slightly worse than Player B. However, Player A starts on the good side.

Game 1: Player A wins 11-9 (or any scoreline with only two points difference)

Game 2: Player A wins 11-9

Change ends

Game 3: Player B wins 11-6

Change ends

Game 4: Player A wins 11-9

Player A wins the match 3 games to 1, while if Player B started on the good side it would have been 3 games to 1 in B's favor. It seems like this new system will result in quite a few more upsets due to this as well as the fact that games are shorter and have higher variance. Also, being down two games when on the bad side might lead to a significant psychological block for that player which can dampen their fighting spirit.

I think it is better to change ends after the first game, and if one player is already up 2 games to 0, then in the third game change ends at the 6 point interval as well as at 10-10 if the two players battle to a tie.

 

Which scoring system are you talking about? This is neither 2016 BWF experiment 1 nor 2 - in both, ends are changed after every game as well as when the leading player/team reaches 6 in the fifth set.

 

It is the one you linked at http://www.sulkapallo.fi/wp-content...Experimental-Scoring-System-13-April-2016.pdf

Rule 8.1.2 - the first change of ends comes at the end of the second game, in both option 1 and option 2.

 

bwf's main concern is time: the duration of each match adding up to a broadcast day of semis/finals.

currently an avg. semis/finals day takes at least 5 hours. how many other major sports allocate 5 hours to broadcast a game/match? not taking into account a pre-game show like the nba/nfl.

the goal: how do you get 5 matches to fit into a 4 hour broadcast without making a match too short for the players and spectators.

my solution:

• game format: best of 3
• rally scoring format: game 1 & 2 - 18 points, win by 2, 21 point cap. if game 3 is nec'y - 18 points, win by 2, no cap.

i'll leave it to you guys to calculate the time savings for a semis/finals broadcast day.

 

I believe you are overlooking rule §8.1.1:

Note the text at the bottom of the first page of the Experiment document, which reads Please refer to the current laws section for all other scoring details.

 

Yes, I must have missed that, and thanks for pointing it out.

 

I watched singles games more than doubles, especially those of LCW, LD, CL, VA, etc. the most exciting game will be the third game where fitness and finesse will win the game. What's competitive sport when you need lesser and lesser fitness? Where is the spirit of competitive sport now? Can the new world champion claim to be a great like LD, PG, LCW or TH?

On what basis? Skills? Strategy? Fitness?

Well, that's just my opinion. I still think fitness and finesse should be part of a competition. That's where a fellow human can outshine another to truly become a champion.